I caught up!
My guess at least is the same reason there are so often "How do I deal with a problem player?" type posts in various D&D communities. Since the answer to both problems is "talk to them".
I can see that, but I wonder still why this particular subject always seems to start negatively. People rarely open a topic like this to talk about how "The Mercer Effect" inspired them to create a new campaign and they are loving every minute of it. Or how the "Mercer Effect" showed them that DnD is a game that is inclusive to everyone and that cool people play it.
It is always "how do we deal with players wanting to be actors like Sam Reigel" or "How do we deal with DMs feeling inadequate next to Mercer"
That's why I brought up other famous people in their respective fields, not neccesarily the best, just famous. Would you expect people to go to a basketball game and complain about the unrealistic expectations set by Shaq or Jordan? Why do we associate Mercer with problem players while rarely talking about the positive aspects within the community.
I don't know if the video is still up, but I remember in Season 1, back when they still had time to read letters, they would constantly get mail from people about how CR helped them through a rough time in their lives, or helped inspire them to create, to the point where I remember they had a video, I think it was almost an hour, that was just full of dedications people gave for the positive impact CR and/or DnD had on their lives.
That is just as much the "Mercer Effect" as people coming to the table and expected houserules that you don't use.
I don't think it's just a "Mercer Effect". I think there's a recognizable "Gygaxian Effect" in various message board discussions about how the game is played, maybe particularly among the OSR enthusiasts. It's just not called that, as far as I can tell, and may be a bit less defined.
I would also argue that it's not just among RPGers. You see it in movies too. There are plenty of directors who will explore another influencing director's style. To give you an example, Zak and Miri Make a Porno is about as Judd Apatow a movie as I've seen that isn't directed by Judd Apatow. I think Kevin Smith was deliberately exploring Apatow's style. And you see that with movies that aren't by Wes Anderson but really feel like they might be.
It is late and I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your point. Could you elaborate?
Well first of all, I don't think the “Matt Mercer effect” is a real thing. It’s been pointed out a few times in this thread that accounts of players and DMs actually expecting their games to be just like Critical Role seem to always be third-hand. It looks less like a genuine phenomenon to me and more like a poor attempt at scaremongering targeted at old fogies who don’t like all this newfangled streaming business (which is itself a bit of a caricature).
I disagree with a catch.
I think there is an effect Matt Mercer and CR has had on the Dungeons and Dragons community. I do not believe it is being accurately portrayed very often in these discussions, but if DnD lasts another hundred years and gets a comprehensive history, Mercer gets a full chapter in that history.
But I do agree, I think the anecdotes do seem to be blown a little out of proportion.
Second of all, the quality of play in sports can be objectively measured, where DMing and playing is far more subjective. Fans setting Matt Mercer as an example of quality DMing is far more dubious than setting Tiger Woods as an example of quality golfing. Tiger undeniably golfs well, whereas opinions on Matt’s DMing are varied. Which, again, I think is the point of the alleged “Matt Mercer effect” - to scare gatekeep-y folks who are already worried that streaming is “ruining D&D” by saying “look, new players are treating The Bad Internet DM as a benchmark for good DMing! Won’t someone please think of the newbies!”
I can see that, but I want to clarify my point.
I was trying to come up with "famous" people in their fields, not neccesarily the best. And, by default of how the world works, people famous within a field tend to be very good within that field.
But, look at John Wayne. Was he a good actor? I assume so, but I'm also positive film critics could name a half a dozen actors who were better than him. But Wayne was incredibly famous and affected the Culture.
I think also, that if we step back and think about it, the new players that come from Critical Role are 100% right. Mercer is the Best DM they have ever seen. He is also probably the only DM they have ever seen.
In fact, thinking about it, most people will likely have had only around a dozen DMs, some people far far less than that. And those new players will have never seen your (speaking to the invisible "you" over that way) DMing style.
But I also think it is fair to say that while you might not like Mercer's style, he is an excellent GM. I won't say the greatest or the best, but I think even his worst critics will admit he gets a solid B as a GM. And he is visible. When I first picked up DnD books around the age of twelve, that didn't exist for me. I was in college before I ever played a single game, and I refused to run until I had played, because I had no idea what to do. I had no idea what DMing "looked" like. But now, there is a highly visible, competent DM. And if you don't like him, there are about another dozen you could refer to, but people who don't have someone to ask "hey, what is DnD" might still stumble across Critical Role and see what it is that we all love.
And, I think that is worth getting a few players who insist on things being a certain way.